coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
7.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Durham.
8.  Between 1987 and 1997, the applicant lived in a stable relationship with Miss D. They never married.
9.  On 18 June 1991, Miss D. had a daughter. The applicant was registered as father on the birth certificate.
10.  In October 1997, the applicant and Miss D. separated. On 29 June 1998, they entered into a Deed of Separation by which the applicant undertook to pay weekly maintenance of 25 pounds sterling (GBP) for his daughter. In the 1998-1999 tax year, he paid GBP 1,300 under the Deed. The sum increased over time in accordance with the applicant’s increase in earnings. Since April 2002, the applicant has made weekly maintenance payments of GBP 35.
11.  For the year of assessment 1997-1998, the applicant was granted relief on his self-assessment tax return for the maintenance payments made under the Deed. The Government state that this was an error by the Inland Revenue. In 1998-1999, the applicant put in a further claim to deduct these maintenance payments. This would have reduced his income tax liability by GBP 195.
12.  By letter dated 21 December 2000, the Inland Revenue refused the claim for tax relief in respect of the maintenance payments: “because you were never married to your daughter’s mother.”
13.  The applicant appealed against the refusal to a tax tribunal, namely the General Commissioners for the Division of Durham, invoking the provisions of the Convention.
14.  A hearing took place on 11 July 2002. The applicant was unrepresented. On the morning of the hearing, counsel for the Inland Revenue presented him with a large file of the authorities on which the Inland Revenue sought to rely.
15.  On 15 August 2002, the General Commissioners rejected his appeal, primarily on the ground that the Human Rights Act 1998 did not apply to the case as it had only come into force on 2 October 2000 after the tax year in question.
16.  Miss D. married during the 1999-2000 tax year, on 24 July 1999.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Izmir.
5.  On 6 February 1998 the General Directorate of National Airports expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to her when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicant's request for increased compensation, on 29 April 1999 the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance awarded her additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate.
7.  On 20 October 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the First-instance court.
8.  On 18 April 2000 the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance awarded the applicant an additional compensation of 3,400,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) plus an interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision.
9.  On 27 June 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance.
10.  On 26 October 2000 the Court of Cassation rejected the General Directorate of National Airports' request for rectification.
11.  On 7 December 2000 the General Directorate of National Airports paid the amount of TRL 8,138,266,000 to the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Moscow.
5.  In June 2001 the applicant was advised by the Housing Policy Department of the North-Eastern Administrative District Council that the building in which she owned a flat had been scheduled for demolition within the framework of a city-wide programme for reconstruction of Soviet-era housing. The applicant was offered a substitute flat in a remote area of Yuzhnoye Butovo. After the applicant had rejected the offer, the Council sued her for eviction and resettlement.
6.  On 27 September 2001 the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow found for the Council. It ordered the applicant's eviction from her old flat and transferred her title in it to the Council's account. It also held that the new flat in Yuzhnoye Butovo should be transferred into the applicant's ownership. On 6 December 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 27 September 2001.
7.  On 24 January 2002 enforcement proceedings were opened. On 2 April 2002 bailiffs relocated the applicant into the new flat.
8.  The applicant asked the court to clarify the judgment of 27 September 2001. She submitted that title in the new flat had not been transferred to her because the local council had asked her to pay for additional living surface and to advance the registration fee.
9.  On 26 August 2002 the Babushkinskiy District Court delivered a procedural order (определение). It interpreted Article 49.3 of the Housing Code (see below) in the sense that, where eviction was required because of demolition of a building, registration fees were to be borne by the party who sought eviction, that is the North-Eastern District Council.
10.  On 10 April 2003 a court bailiff requested the Municipal Housing Department of the North-Eastern Administrative District Council to report why the judgment of 27 September 2001, as clarified on 26 August 2002, remained unenforced in the part concerning the transfer of title to the applicant.
11.  On 7 May 2003 the Municipal Housing Department responded to the bailiff that the judgment had not imposed the obligation to transfer title on the Department and that it was not competent to act on behalf of the North-Eastern Administrative District Council.
12.  According to the Government, on 4 December 2003 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, the procedural order of 26 August 2002 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. On 20 May 2004 the Babushkinskiy District Court refused the applicant's request for a clarification of the judgment of 27 September 2001. Copies of these decisions were not made available to the Court.
8.  In a decision of 27 November 1989 the Labour‑Expert Medical Commission (“the LEMC” – see paragraph 19 below) specialised in pulmonary diseases diagnosed the applicant as suffering from asbestosis and various other diseases and determined that he qualified for second-degree disability. From that point on the applicant was undergoing biannual medical examinations at the LEMC, and each time his diagnosis and degree of disability were confirmed.
9.  Apparently due to a deterioration of the applicant's health, in a decision of 9 December 1997 the competent LEMC revised his disability to first‑degree, without the need for another person's assistance. Later, on 21 May 1998, another LEMC decided that the applicant qualified for first‑degree disability in need of another person's assistance.
10.  The chief expert at the Central Labour‑Expert Medical Commission (“the CLEMC” – see paragraph 19 below) at the Ministry of Health appealed against the latter decision. On 18 June 1998 the CLEMC overturned the LEMC's decisions of 9 December 1997 and 21 May 1998 and the applicant's disability status was set back to second‑degree.
11.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with the Supreme Administrative Court.
12.  On 6 October 1998 a three‑member panel of the court declared the applicant's appeal inadmissible. It held that the appealed decision was not subject to judicial review, in accordance with section 23(c) of the Implementing Regulations of the Labour Code of 1951, section 29a of Regulation no. 36 of the Minister of Health, and section 11(2) of the Implementing Regulations of the Pensions Act (see paragraph 22 below).
13.  The applicant appealed to a five‑member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court, arguing that the refusal of the three-member panel to examine the appeal was contrary to Article 120 § 2 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention. He submitted that the CLEMC's determination directly affected the amount of disability pension that was allotted to him.
14.  The five‑member panel upheld the three-member panel's decision in a final decision of 1 March 1999, holding that under section 23(c) of the Implementing Regulations of the Labour Code of 1951 the CLEMC's decisions were final and not subject to judicial review.
4.  The applicants were born in 1926 and 1943 respectively, and live in Antalya.
5.  On 17 December 1997 the General Directorate of National Airports expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot and the relevant amount was paid to them when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicants' request for increased compensation, on 20 March 1998 the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance awarded them additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision.
7.  On 9 June 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance.
8.  On 28 September 1998 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants' request for rectification of the judgment of 9 June 1998.
9.  On 20 December 1999 the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance awarded the applicants additional compensation of 33,318,109,000 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate running from 17 December 1997, the date on which the title deed to the land had been transferred to the General Directorate of National Airports in the land registry.
10.  On 29 February 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance.
11.  On 8 May 2000 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants' request for rectification.
12.  On 7 June 2000 the General Directorate of National Airports paid the applicants an overall amount of TRL 77,103,800,000.
4.  The applicants were born in 1945, 1935, 1948 and 1938 respectively and live in İskenderun and Belen respectively.
5.  In 1993 the applicants' plots of land in İskenderun were expropriated by the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways. A committee of experts assessed the value of these lands and the determined amounts were paid to them when the expropriation took place.
6.  On 20 August, 10 October and 21 November 1996 respectively, the applicants filed separate actions for compensation with the İskenderun Civil Court of First Instance.
7.  On 19 September 1997 the first-instance court ordered the administration to pay Mıstık Ateş 41,410,845,000 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 7 August 1996, the date on which the ownership of the property was transferred to the National Water Board.
8.  On 25 September 1997 the first-instance court ordered the administration to pay Gülizar Pembe TRL 6,467,500,000 plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 11 September 1996, the date on which the ownership of the property was transferred to the National Water Board.
9.  On the same day, the first-instance court ordered the administration to pay Yüksel Bozkaya TRL 80,274,368,000 plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 23 October 1996, the date on which the ownership of the property was transferred to the National Water Board.
10.  On 7 October 1997 the first-instance court ordered the administration to pay İsmail Karapınar TRL 13,075,000,000 plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 11 September 1996, the date on which the ownership of the property was transferred to the National Water Board.
11.  The Court of Cassation upheld the above-mentioned judgments of the İskenderun First Instance Court on 11 May, 20 May and 25 May 1998 respectively.
12.  On 8 April, 13 April, 12 May and 4 June 1999 respectively, the administration paid the applicants the amounts due together with interest.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the town of Nova Kakhovka, Kherson region, Ukraine.
5.  On 4 August 2000 the Nova Kakhovka Town Court awarded the applicant UAH 3,150.00[1] in salary arrears against his former employer – the Southern Machinery Construction factory (the majority share of which – 70% – was owned by the State). The judgment was not appealed and became final.
6.  On 3 July 2001 the Nova Kakhovka Town Court awarded the applicant UAH 1,180.00[2] in compensation for moral damage against the same factory.
7.  By letter of 14 February 2003, the Head of the Kherson Regional Department of Justice of Ukraine informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings against the factory had been stayed due to the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor.
8.  On 17 May 2004 the Nova Kakhovka Town Court awarded the applicant UAH 13,460.72[3] in compensation for the delay in payment of the salary arrears against the same debtor. The enforcement proceedings in respect of this judgment were initiated on 24 June 2004.
9.  The judgments remain unenforced.
7.  The applicant, Mr Alexei Scutari, was born in 1930 and lives in Edineţ.
8.  In 1949 the Soviet authorities nationalised the property owned by his parents and deported his family to Siberia.
9.  On 8 December 1992 the Moldovan Parliament enacted Law No. 1225-XII “on the rehabilitation of the victims of the political repression committed by the totalitarian communist occupying regime”. The Law enabled the victims of Soviet repression to claim compensation for their nationalised property.
10.  In 2001 the applicant brought an action against the Local Treasury Department in respect of the latter's refusal to pay him compensation.
11.  On 26 July 2001 the Orhei District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the Local Treasury Department to pay him compensation of 41,705 Moldovan Lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 3,700 euros (EUR) at the time).
12.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the bailiff failed to enforce. On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 26 July 2001. In a letter of 7 May 2003, the Ministry of Justice assured the applicant that everything possible was being done to enforce the decision, but that the Local Treasury Department did not have any money in its account.
13.  On 20 February 2004, after the case had been communicated to the Government, the judgment was enforced. The applicant wrote a receipt addressed to the head of the Edineţ Department of Execution of Judgments in which he confirmed that he had received the money in accordance with the judgment of 26 July 2001 and that he had no more claims against the debtor and against the Department of the Execution of Judgments.
4.  The applicant is a water management association founded under Act no. 57 of 1995 on Water Management, with its seat in Mezőtúr, Hungary.
5.  On 18 December 1996 the applicant requested the Szolnok District Court to issue an order for payment against a limited liability company. On 27 March 1997 the respondent objected to the order and brought a counter-claim against the applicant. The proceedings continued as civil litigation.
6.  The District Court held hearings on 20 February, 8 April and 16 September 1998. In the meantime, on 10 July 1998 the District Court imposed a fine on the applicant’s legal representative for having failed to submit some requested documents.
7.  On 22 October 1998 the District Court appointed an expert architect. The expert submitted his opinion on 14 May 1999. The parties submitted their observations on 28 June and 23 September 1999.
8.  At the hearing of 24 September 1999, the applicant’s legal representative failed to appear. The court imposed a fine on him and invited him to make a statement in writing. He submitted his statement on 29 October 1999.
9.  The District Court held hearings on 13 December 1999 and 27 March 2000.
10.  On 31 May 2000 the court heard the parties’ representatives, the expert and some witnesses.
11.  On 8 June 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action and partly accepted the respondent’s counter-claim.
12.  On 23 November 2000 the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It filed a petition for review.
13.  On 17 April 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review.
4.  The applicants were born in 1956, 1954 and 1955 respectively and live in Munich, Germany.
5.  In 1995 the Sakarya Governor’s office expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to them when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, on 11 September 1997 the Sakarya Civil Court of First-instance awarded them an additional compensation of 865,267,950 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] plus interest at the statutory rate running from 12 December 1995, the date on which the title-deed to the land had been transferred to the Sakarya Governor’s Office. In the course of the proceedings, the court conducted on-site visits and requested three expert reports which concluded that the land in question was development land (arsa). In view of a judgment rendered by the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation which ruled that the lands within the vicinity of the Sakarya organised industrial zone should be considered as agricultural lands, the court decided that it would not take the three expert reports into account. It therefore relied on a fourth expert report which served as a conciliation report for a calculation of the amount due to the applicants.
7.  The applicants appealed against the judgment of the Sakarya Civil Court of First-instance. In their submissions, the applicants contested the court’s decision to take solely the last expert report into consideration.
8.  On 12 February 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Sakarya Civil Court of First-instance.
9.  On 1 April 1998 the Sakarya Governor’s Office paid the amount of TRL 1,513,641,033[2] to the applicants.
10.  On 26 May 1998 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ request for rectification.
5.  The applicants were respectively born in 1932, 1963, 1941 and 1940 and live in Florence.
6.  M.S. was the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to E.D.L. and after her death to her daughter S.L.D.B.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 October 1989, M.S. informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date. He summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 9 November 1989, which was made enforceable on 21 November 1989, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
9.  On 12 June 1993, M.S. died, his wife and children – the actual applicants – inherited the flat and became party to the proceedings as heirs.
10.  On 14 December 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
11.  On 18 January 1994, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 March 1994.
12.  Between 8 March 1994 and 3 December 1998, the bailiff made nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 27 July 1999, pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked for a suspension of the eviction proceedings.
14.  The eviction proceedings were suspended until 26 January 2001.
15.  On 8 March 2001, the applicants served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 14 May 2001.
16.  On that date, the bailiff made one attempt and discovered that the tenant had left the premises on 10 May 2001.
17.  Consequently, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Rome.
6.  A.C., the applicant's aunt, was the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to C.R.
7.  In a registered letter of 10 May 1985, A.C. informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 April 1986 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 10 July 1985, A.C. reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 14 November 1985, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1986.
10.  On 29 May 1986, A.C. served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
11.  On 24 July 1986, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 August 1986.
12.  Between 5 August 1986 and 20 November 1998, the bailiff made thirty-six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as A.C. was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  In the meanwhile, on 9 November 1998, A.C. died and her nephew, the applicant, inherited the apartment.
14.  On 22 July 1999, pursuant to Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings.
15.  After that, on an unspecified day of 1999, the applicant became party to the national proceedings.
16.  The enforcement proceedings were suspended first until 30 May 2000 and then until 16 November 2000.
17.  On 30 January 2001, the tenant spontaneously left the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
5.  The applicants were respectively born in 1938, 1943 and 1948 and live in Rome.
6.  The applicants' father was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to V.D.C.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 January 1984, the applicants' father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 17 April 1984, which was made enforceable on 2 May 1984, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 16 April 1985.
9.  On 2 May 1984, the applicants' father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
10.  On 3 April 1987, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 12 May 1987.
11.  Between 12 May 1987 and 29 March 2001, the bailiff made forty-six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants' father was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  In the meanwhile, on 14 February 1992, the applicants' father died and the applicants inherited the flat.
13.  On 18 July 1998, they became party to the eviction proceedings as heirs.
14.  On an unspecified date of April 2001, the applicants recovered possession of the flat with the assistance of the police.